In our previous article, we explored whether virtual hearings are undermining the principle of open courts – a foundations element of Canadian justice that promotes transparency and public accountability. In this follow-up, we take a closer look at recent case law and policy developments to examine how courts are attempting to maintain that balance in an increasingly digital legal landscape.
Zoom Court, Access, and Accountability: Key Decisions
Recent decisions from Canadian courts shed new light on how the open court principle is evolving in the era of Zoom hearings. Two cases stand out.
In Toronto Star v. His Majesty the King, 2025 ONSC 2146, the Ontario Superior Court addressed the media’s right to access virtual criminal proceedings. The Toronto Star had been denied access to a Zoom hearing involving a high-profile defendant. The court reaffirmed that virtual formats do not alter the presumption of openness. It founds that the denial breached the open court principle, emphasizing that technology must not become a barrier to transparency. The decision called for courts to adopt better systems for notifying the public and press about virtual hearings.
The Supreme Court o fCanada weighed in on related issues in Endean v. British Columbia, 2016 SCC 42, a civil class action case involving multi-jurisdictional hearings. The SCC affirmed that superior court judges can conduct hearings outside their home province if necessary and efficient. Although not specific to Zoom, the ruling anticipated the kind of interprovincial flexibility that virtual hearings now make commonplace. Importantly, the Court underscored that such flexibility must not compromise open court values.
Privacy, Marginalization, and the Limits of Openness
Not all concerns about virtual transparency are about public access. Some are about protecting individuals’ rights to privacy and dignity – especially in cases that draw intense public interest.
In Sherman Estate v. Donovan, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the estate of a wealthy Toronto couple murdered under mysterious circumstances. The estate trustees sought to seal court files to protect the family’s privacy. The SCC recognized that while open courts are vital, they are not absolute. The Court refined the common law test for sealing orders in civil matters, particularly recognizing privacy as important to the public interest. Ultimately however, the court did not allow the court files to be sealed, keeping in line with the open court principle.
This decision, alongside CBC v. Manitoba, highlights a growing tension: digital court access can amplify harm. Online dissemination is fast, wide-reaching, and sometimes permanent. Courts must now weigh now only whether the proceedings are open, but how much exposure is too much – especially for marginalized or vulnerable individuals.
Modern Tools, Old Values: Can Technology Enhance Transparency?
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has responded by expanding virtual public access. According to its website, most hearings can now be attended via Zoom from anywhere in the world. This innovation has the potential to increase public engagement and media oversight like never before. However, access depends on knowing when and where hearings are happening and how to obtain the links – challenges that still exist across jurisdictions.
To preserve the open court principle in this new era, courts must:
- Publicize dockets and Zoom links in centralized, accessible ways;
- Create consistent, transparent access policies across jurisdictions;
- Balance openness with privacy in cases involving vulnerable participants;
- Embrace technological solutions without abandoning foundational values.
Conclusion
The principle of open courts is not static – it evolves with society, technology, and jurisprudence. The courts have reaffirmed that transparency must survive digital transformation, even if it looks different than it once did. But as recent cases show, we must also acknowledge and navigate the new challenges that come with broader access, including those related to privacy, marginalization and digital permanence.
Justice must still be seen to be done – but now, we must decide how to make that vision clear on a screen
